WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump, who popularized the term “fake news,” has recently introduced a new concept into public discourse: “fake math.” This term became evident during a recent event where Trump announced a partnership with Regeneron aimed at reducing the cost of pharmaceutical products.
At this event, President Trump reiterated his controversial claim that prescription drug prices had been slashed by over 100%. Such statements, of course, raise eyebrows because mathematically, it is impossible to reduce prices by more than their original cost unless companies drop prices to zero and then compensate consumers for their purchases.
Trump defended his previous assertions that his administration had achieved price reductions of “500%, 600%,” suggesting that alternative calculations were also valid: “We also sometimes say 50%, 60%,” he stated. He called this a “different kind of calculation” that could extend as high as “70, 80, and 90%.”
While there may be different ways to present statistics, the distinction between accurate and misleading math is crucial. One form of calculation is correct, while the other lacks mathematical validity. This misunderstanding of percentages was highlighted during the same event when Trump’s health chief, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., echoed similar claims.
Kennedy referenced a recent exchange with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who pointed out that claiming price cuts exceeding 100% might imply that pharmaceutical companies should be paying consumers to take their drugs. He argued that Trump’s unique way of calculating was evident in this context.
During the same event, Kennedy stated that if a drug’s price rose from $100 to $600, it represented a 600% increase. While it may seem logical at first glance, this calculation is incorrect. The increase from $100 to $600 is, in reality, a 500% increase. This misinterpretation of mathematical principles contributes to the confusion surrounding drug pricing.
To clarify, while a price can increase by more than 100%, a reduction cannot occur beyond the original price without reaching zero or dipping into negative values. For example, a product that rises from $1 to $2.10 experiences a 110% increase, but reducing a price by more than 100% would imply consumers are compensated for using the product.
During a subsequent question-and-answer session, Trump also provided a questionable account of the duration of the ongoing conflict in Iran. He contended that the military engagement, which began on February 28, fell within the four to six-week timeframe he had initially predicted. However, the reality is that the conflict has extended beyond that timeline, contradicting his statement.
In addition to these remarks, Trump revisited the topic of his 2017 inauguration crowd size, asserting that he had drawn a crowd comparable to Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963. He claimed, “I had the same exact crowd. Maybe a little bit more,” insisting that photographic evidence supported his assertion.
In summary, the recent event showcased President Trump’s tendency to use flawed mathematical reasoning to support his claims about drug pricing, military timelines, and crowd sizes. These instances highlight the need for critical examination of statements made by public figures, especially regarding complex issues that impact the lives of many Americans.
